New at Reason
Cathy Young post-mortems the Imus affair.
Comments to "New at Reason":
Guy Montag | April 23, 2007, 3:43pm | #
First Post!grumpy realist | April 23, 2007, 4:02pm | #
If Imus had used the same vocabulary about someone who was obviously a public figure, I doubt it would have produced the same uproar. In this case his comments were made about a set of young female atheletes and it just came off as mean-spirited for too many people. It was the outrage of people who imagined just how they would react if similar comments had been made about their own daughters. All that babble about "first Amendment" and "freedom of the press" didn't make any different--they still wanted to punch the guy's lights out.Moral to shock-jocks: pick on someone your own size.
I think that's a new record for questions asked but not answered in a Cathy Young column.
R.Totale | April 23, 2007, 4:03pm | #
First Post!
I admire a man that can take pleasure in small accomplishments.
Hooked on Innuendo | April 23, 2007, 4:04pm | #
What's really more racist: a radio shock jock's dumb casual gibe at a group of black women athletes, or Dowd's calculated putdown of a black man who strays from the approved black point of view?Imus' remark was more racist. Dowd was expressing a political point regarding Thomas, whereas Imus was just expressing disdain for black women because they're black women.
Cathy, that's an easy one.
Warren | April 23, 2007, 4:04pm | #
Good piece Cathy,The best on the Imus affair I've seen. You focused on the only interesting thing in the whole business. Namely, what was the perfect storm that caused more than ten people to give a shit about this?
Mad Max | April 23, 2007, 4:15pm | #
Hmmm . . . "shock jock goes too far." Tune in at 11 to hear about a dog biting a man, and the secret of what bears do in the woods.Plus: The Pope's hat: Is it funny-looking?
highnumber | April 23, 2007, 4:17pm | #
Warren,Newsweek (gasp!) had an illuminating article and On the Media (NPR?! oh, my!) had a thoughtful analysis of this. (what do we call this - Nappyheadedhogate?)
Steveland Morris | April 23, 2007, 4:41pm | #
Looking back, I was a nappy-headed boy.Dylan | April 23, 2007, 4:55pm | #
I've heard worse about Clarence Thomas from liberals. John Stewart, in "America (The Book)" -- which does have some pretty funny stuff in it -- has a joke about Thomas being Scalia's "sock-puppet." And I've heard others suggest similar things. While not expressly "racist," I get the feeling that the only reason a joke like that would be made is b/c of the man's race. That remark wouldn't be made about other justices who often agree with Scalia. The subtext seems to be that he must be a dumb Uncle Tom kissing whitey's ass, because a black man could never come to those conclusions on his own (although I seem to remember that Thomas wrote a pretty sharp dissent for one of the recent big cases in which Scalia came down with the majority -- I think it was Raich).Anyway, it's bad enough when black people start in on "race-traitor" nonsense directed at other blacks who might hold conservative opinions, but it's particularly insulting when white people do it. One of my best friends is a pretty libertarian-minded black girl, and she's caught hell in the past from liberals black and white. She doesn't mind that people disagree with her, but it pisses her off when people suggest that because she's black, she should think a certain way.
Regarding Al Sharpton, he can get off his high horse right about now. Sean Hannity (hardly someone I would ever give the final word to) was playing clips of some of Sharpton's past rantings. "Nigger" this, "nigger" that, "Greek homos," "white people in caves" ... give me a break.
jf | April 23, 2007, 5:01pm | #
Dylan,Regarding your first sentence, Julianne Malveaux comes to mind.
I heard the n-word on Chappelle's show last night. Perhaps somebody at Comedy Central should be fired? It doesn't matter that Chappelle is funny, or that Rutgers women are ugly, what's important is that nobody ever be offended again, especially by shows that they've never watched and never will watch. Those are the shows you really have to watch....
Pro Libertate | April 23, 2007, 5:12pm | #
Thomas has penned some pretty decent opinions, and I seem to recall that he doesn't vote all that closely with Scalia, anyway. I've always thought the view of him as some sort of lackey was just a different variety of racism.Grotius | April 23, 2007, 5:26pm | #
Pro Libertate,And do you agree with his arguments in cases like Earls and Samson v. California?
Pro Libertate | April 23, 2007, 5:29pm | #
I like him best in dissent--Gonzales v. Raich, Kelo, etc. He's often just "conservative", but he has some consistent areas where he's positively libertarian.How can you not like, at least a little bit, the guy who said, "Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution"?
Like any other justice his opinions present me with a mixed bag from my POV. I suppose that means that I like him no more or no less than any other justice.
Pro Libertate | April 23, 2007, 5:38pm | #
I'm hardly satisfied with him. I didn't get my Janice Rogers Brown appointment, so I must wait for the truly libertarian justice.kanabiis | April 23, 2007, 5:38pm | #
We will never get over 'race' issues as long as there are people who make thier entire fortunes and lives on insuring that anything that happens to a black man in America is proof of a 'race issue' ie. Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton et. al.When an asian american is pulled over, you dont Connie Chung all over the morning talk shows demanding an appology.
This race issue is only an issue for those that stem to make the most money out of it...Untill black people realize that, they will always just be ni**ers to everyone else.
Dylan | April 23, 2007, 5:46pm | #
jf,Yeah, Julianne Malveaux seems like a nasty piece of work.
I once fired off a cranky drunken email to her when I saw her on CNN talking shit about Elvis (it was his birthday), harping on the tired myth that Elvis "stole" everything he did from black people.
She didn't write back ...
thoreau | April 23, 2007, 5:48pm | #
Who is this Imus person?Did you read English language blogs and/or news sites two weeks ago?
If you answered "yes" to the above then you know who Imus is and are having trouble admitting it.
Seems like a lot of people who never watched or listened to Imus were outraged about those who did. Afterall, they know what's good for us.
Pro Libertate | April 23, 2007, 5:52pm | #
"Imus" refers to a person? Wow, and here I am thinking that it is the American spelling of a particular variety of flightless bird. Plural, of course.jimc285 | April 23, 2007, 5:59pm | #
In the long term the result of the Imas affair is that viewers will pressure advertisers that will pressure media outlets to remove anything that is remotely offensive .Bland news and comment will be the end result.
Rosie, Rush and who knows will be next.
Media has a responsibility to not wimp out every time interest groups push advertisers to pull the cash
Grotius | April 23, 2007, 6:00pm | #
thoreau,No, I was busy working on my plot to seize the minds all the world's physicists via a brain control instrument I'm perfecting.
The Emus | April 23, 2007, 6:03pm | #
We resent the word "flightless" and insist on the spelling "emus".Your nappy-headed hoes will be hearing from our nappy-headed hoes.
Bill O'Reilly | April 23, 2007, 6:11pm | #
In the long term the result of the Imas affair is......apparently even further cheapening of Christmas.
Godless heathens.
Guy Montag | April 23, 2007, 7:52pm | #
I admire a man that can take pleasure in small accomplishments.You have no idea how small.
Guy Montag | April 23, 2007, 8:01pm | #
Is Cathy Young a bot?No, she is hot in a kinda awkward, shy way.
If one wants to find some real racism, not the vanilla Imus quip kind, just check out that Sharpton speech that Opie and Anthony played last week where Sharpton spoke of black folk frying chicken, then bashed "Chinamen" Koreans for selling "sliced-up watermellon with a rubber band" to black folk "like they don't know what it is".
Yea, Imus needs to be gone for his crap and so do Sharpton, Jackson and Duke (David). I would ad a New Republic reporter for racist-baiting, but she has yet to cross a line in print. Just give her time.
Alan Vanneman | April 23, 2007, 9:47pm | #
I don't really give a damn if Imus is on the air or not. A public figure who doesn't know that it's a bad idea to refer to young black women as "stupid, ugly whores" [my paraphrase] doesn't deserve to be making $15 million a year. It's also a bad idea to run over puppies and to shoot baby giant pandas. Functioning in the mass media isn't rocket science.Henly | April 23, 2007, 10:40pm | #
Why would anyone care what Imus says about them? Something he utters has the power to hurt? The guy is a tool. Suck it up folks!Hemorrhoid cream commercials offend me.So do ads for womens douche. If you don't like Imus don't marry him. And for gods sake stop whining about every frickin little thing that happens in the world.
bill | April 23, 2007, 11:26pm | #
It seems like no one in this country has ever heard of context and inflection. English is one of the hardest languages to learn because of it. Imus was fired for three words. Almost none of the talking heads on tv repeated what had been said prior to that comment and what Imus' tone of voice was. It's obvious it was an off the cuff attempt at humor. It's not like he was behind the podium at a Klan rally. He was trying to be "hip-hop", trying to be cool and it bit him in the assAresen | April 23, 2007, 11:40pm | #
The Imus affair is just another example of people's infinite capacity for faking pains when it suits their purpose.The outrage was the mirror image of the rights' fulminations about Janet Jackson's Superbowl boob flash.
BakedPenguin | April 24, 2007, 7:51am | #
The thing that got me was the obvious comparison to what was going on in NC at the time. The media treated the two stories as if the injustices were comparable.Some dumbass radio jock insults you, or you are falsely prosecuted - knowingly - for a crime that could land you in prison for 15 years. Which is a greater injustice? Hmmm...
ed | April 24, 2007, 8:51am | #
It's obvious that Imus was speaking in the abstract, as he had never met the women in question and therefore could have no informed opinion of them. Besides, the ladies' press conference later on confirmed that nary a one of them was "nappy headed", as all appeared to have straightened their hair. No "afro power" in that lineup. Just some ostensibly decent girls who got caught up in identity politics.Ron Hardin | April 24, 2007, 9:46am | #
Imus's remark was perfectly acceptable : he was using the jargon of a dysfunctional and narcissistic black culture to mock a heavily tattoed black women's basketball team, if you listen to the original. It's an amusing way to describe the situation, is all. The situation being that blacks make choices that are self-defeating. If you can't say that any longer, then the road to truth is no longer open. That's the danger of the Imus firing. Imus specialized in keeping roads open in spite of the media's efforts to dumb it down.As to why it happened, it was Hillary. On Tuesday before Nappy Wednesday, Donald Trump had called producer Bernard McGuirk on behalf of Hillary, to get her booked on the show. Imus hates Hillary as a transparent phoney and the personification (after Al Gore) or evil. McGuirk said no way, and that presumably got relayed back to the Hillary team, and Nappy Wednesday was kicked off by Media Matters into a slow news cycle, and the rest is history.
Except for the bizarre reaction of Imus management, which is way, way out of character. But I guess they were being leaned on.
Imus's initial reaction, on Thursday after 9am, was that the complainers ought to get over it and worry about something serious, like treatment of wounded veterans.
On Friday he was all apology. There must have been some serious and uncharacteristic leaning-on going on.
He shouldn't have apologized at all, but pointed out what the characterization was for, and that Blacks are defeating themselves with frightening regularity, which is actually something he cares about.
My question is: Where are all the grandstanding politicians going to go now to pretend they are human beings.
shockcorridor | April 24, 2007, 10:06am | #
Thank God Imus has been exposed as worse than Hitler!I taught at a Catholic, Jesuit high school and had to work with a religion teacher, 60-something white man, who once referred to J.C. Watts as an "Uncle Tom," would call black people brothers and sisters, and once told a student if he could do it over again he would be reborn as a "person of color." He also admitted to stealing his neighbor's newspaper and putting it back in the plastic on his front step before 6 AM and never tipping his mailman at Christmas.
Isaac Bartram | April 24, 2007, 10:31am | #
Thomas has penned some pretty decent opinions, and I seem to recall that he doesn't vote all that closely with Scalia, anyway.Even though Thomas votes with Scalia quite often, I get the impression from his written opinions that he gets there a different way.
He has frequently written to the effect that he is against a certain law it is within the state's Constitutionally granted powers.
I've always thought the view of him as some sort of lackey was just a different variety of racism.
That's often how it looks to me to.
ChrisO | April 24, 2007, 2:12pm | #
It's pretty clear over time that Thomas is much more of a strict constructionist than Scalia, who belabors the idea of original intent but seems inclined to deviate when it suits his purposes. I've never seen that much of a connection between them, and it's kind of interesting (and telling) that Scalia was never similarly lumped in as a "tool" of Rehnquist, when the three of them consistently formed the conservative bloc year after year.As to the whole Imus thing, that is so two weeks ago.
Wild Pegasus | April 24, 2007, 2:39pm | #
If there were a black liberal justice whose intelligence took the same withering attacks as Thomas', liberals would scream themselves hoarse about racism. But, when it's not their ox being gored...- Josh
george w bush's mama | April 24, 2007, 6:15pm | #
boring article cathy....get your head out of your non sacred cow and answer your own asinine questions....real journalists do real research...study...and interviews to get a pulse....not google searches in borders cafe from their dell laptops and talking to the one black guy that one sees every morning at starbucks on the way home after an intense morning jog.fyi cath---if you want to reach a real understanding of (the) ever-present race question(s) here in the states....migrating from russia wont be enough.....for starts turn off your robin thick.eminem..50 cent...tupac...dirty south ipod mix...and travel outside the new england states.
Yet another dope who thinks that (1) his/her boredom is something that other people care about, (2) everybody article written should be an editorial, and (3) if someone doesn't take the right attitude on race relations, its because they listen to the wrong music or are too provincial.
gwb's mama | April 25, 2007, 6:11pm | #
so lamar...you’re admitting that there is a "wrong" attitude on race relations.thanks for the back up. i wont hold the name calling against you...it seems to be in line with the whole discussion/topic....since it was the juvenile name calling of imus that has brought us here to waste time in the first place.
1. it does get boring for the most part...time and time again...that wps show their truest nature unchanged since emergence from the caucasus mountains. self reflection can be a difficult thing....but it seems especially problematic for these types. you dont have to care....in fact it is totally not expected for you to care...its unwp...a way of showing this would have been not to comment.....but then again.....arrogantly expressing just how much you dont care is pretty wp. pat on the back for you l.
2. whether or not an article is deemed an editorial or not....yawn.
3. "if someone doesn't take the right attitude on race relations, its because they listen to the wrong music or are too provincial."
getting out of your hood every once in a while is a good thing. i dont think you can argue that one. provincialism and bad music is a bad cocktail junior. of course there are other explanations for not having "the right attitude on race relations"---for starts....generational privilege, whiteness..................
Lamar | April 25, 2007, 6:45pm | #
"so lamar...you’re admitting that there is a "wrong" attitude on race relations."Depends on which aspect we're discussing, but of course there are wrong attitudes on race relations, and this country is a hotbed of the wrong attitudes.
1) People stating that they are "bored" is a disgusting phenomenon. I'm not interested in entertaining you, and to keep the symmetry, I don't care if you're bored.
2) Yeah, I was pretty sure you couldn't back that one up. Criticizing a journalist for their objectivity is so 5 minutes ago.
3) I wish I were this rich, white, powerful person you keep idealizing.
If you want to talk about these issues, talk. If you want to criticize Cathy Young for an objective article, then expect a reaction. I, for one, enjoy the questions she raises. I'm sorry you don't, and that you're bored. C'est la vie.